| Stoke 20:54 - Aug 22 with 19439 views | Magic_Michu |
They are really in a mess... spending millions gambling on going straight back up and looking like relegation fodder at the moment. |  |
| |  |
| Stoke on 23:09 - Aug 22 with 1866 views | phact0rri |
Really feel that Shaqiri was the only thing that kept them above water. Much like Gylfi for us, he's the tidy sort of player you can't simply replace like for like.
outside note... its hard to believe he's only 26. |  |
| |
| Stoke on 23:13 - Aug 22 with 1855 views | TheResurrection |
| Stoke on 21:00 - Aug 22 by monmouth |
Oh dear, my heart bleeds.
But surely super Joey Allen will save them? |
Joe Allen can get to fack. No time for him whatsoever. Showed us zero respect since he's been away, couldn't even muster up a wave to the East stand on any occasion he's been back.
Rot up there in Rugby FC you ungrateful kunt. |  |
| |
| Stoke on 23:44 - Aug 22 with 1770 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Stoke on 23:13 - Aug 22 by TheResurrection |
Joe Allen can get to fack. No time for him whatsoever. Showed us zero respect since he's been away, couldn't even muster up a wave to the East stand on any occasion he's been back.
Rot up there in Rugby FC you ungrateful kunt. |
Whaa, he didn't wave to you? ####what a bstard!
I don't think the club showed him any respect in fairness either. |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Stoke on 23:53 - Aug 22 with 1747 views | omarjack |
Stoke are probably the most hated club in the Kingdom, With the exception of those who were born and bred in the city of orcs and goblins of course.
They think they can buy the league with spending crazy money on w@nk players like McClean,Afobe and Ince..and wasting the equivalence of our transfer budget on Sam Clucas..and being the only club in the world deranged enough to actually take on Ash Williams. Not to forget, their alleged achievement in keeping Butland, Allen and Shawcross on board. Don't their fans know that the only reason they stayed is because nobody else wanted them? The only player of any value was Shaqiri and clearly he's gone. Poor f*cker, how did he put up playing for that trollish club all on his own.
As for those who keep w@nking off to Joe Allen, reminiscing about the past. I have a newsflash for you, He's been sh!t since the day he left us, Was terrible at Liverpool, Only a sh!t side like Stoke would take him and as you can all see, He's been utterly gash with them as well. Do I want him back? No thank you. I'd rather we unearth a new talent who would cost one quarter of what his overrated @ss would.
As for Garry Rowett, I admit, I thought he'd be an ok manager for them. But the players he consented to bring in and his inept solutions made me reconsider my opinion.
I couldn't be happier at seeing them imploding with their orcish fans who have nothing better to do that mocking Aaron Ramsey's injury. F*cking filthy scum the lot of them. |  |
| |
| Stoke on 23:55 - Aug 22 with 1741 views | Badlands |
| Stoke on 21:38 - Aug 22 by Dr_Winston |
No doubt.
But the way some people carry on the only reason we are in the Championship now is because we didn't sign Joe in 2016, which is obvious bollocks. |
Got it.. ... the Joe who didn't want to come back to Swansea. |  |
| |
| Stoke on 03:19 - Aug 23 with 1652 views | Wanderer |
Selling Antouvic did not help them either, anyways a famous red and white vertically striped team also came down from the premier last season, and dropped down again, could it happen once more? |  | | |
| Stoke on 05:24 - Aug 23 with 1621 views | Glyn1 |
In a mess?
The last time I looked they were just 6 points behind us with 42 matches to go, with some excellent players and a very good and experienced manager. I'll be delighted if we finish above them.
Seriously people, don't look at the table until after at least 10 games. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 5:26]
|  |
| |
| Stoke on 05:33 - Aug 23 with 1610 views | E20Jack |
Yet our fans have been begging for us to do the same. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stoke on 07:11 - Aug 23 with 1516 views | jack247 |
We’re 4 games in. Palace were dead certs for relegation this time last year. |  | | |
| Stoke on 07:16 - Aug 23 with 1510 views | jack247 |
| Stoke on 05:33 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Yet our fans have been begging for us to do the same. |
There’s a happy medium between throwing stupid money at a promotion push and stripping the squad back to not much more than a good starting 11 and a bench with no striker on it.
I don’t think many, if any, have been advocating we spend £15m or so more than we raise. | | | |
| Stoke on 07:59 - Aug 23 with 1461 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 07:16 - Aug 23 by jack247 |
There’s a happy medium between throwing stupid money at a promotion push and stripping the squad back to not much more than a good starting 11 and a bench with no striker on it.
I don’t think many, if any, have been advocating we spend £15m or so more than we raise. |
Not when your wage bill is £99m there isn’t.
There are associated costs with signing players and they are costs we simply cannot afford to bear right now. Our starting 11 is probably costing the same as many squads in this division. We have the likes of Routledge, Dyer, Montero who barely get a kick and are on Premier League wages. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 8:01]
| |
| |
| Stoke on 08:01 - Aug 23 with 1455 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Stoke on 07:16 - Aug 23 by jack247 |
There’s a happy medium between throwing stupid money at a promotion push and stripping the squad back to not much more than a good starting 11 and a bench with no striker on it.
I don’t think many, if any, have been advocating we spend £15m or so more than we raise. |
Correct, I haven't seen one poster on here as a matter of fact advocating spending what Stoke have. |  | | |
| Stoke on 08:05 - Aug 23 with 1449 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 08:01 - Aug 23 by 34dfgdf54 |
Correct, I haven't seen one poster on here as a matter of fact advocating spending what Stoke have. |
Doesn’t matter how much so to compare to Stoke makes no difference, the principle is the same.
Spending more than your club can handle is the point. We are clearly cutting out cloth accordingly after the fallout from the relegation and to some that isn’t “backing” the manager. £6.5m on a player, plays his signing on fee and agents fees was called for even after it becoming clear there was little, if anything, in the pot. | |
| |
| Stoke on 08:05 - Aug 23 with 1449 views | jack247 |
| Stoke on 07:59 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Not when your wage bill is £99m there isn’t.
There are associated costs with signing players and they are costs we simply cannot afford to bear right now. Our starting 11 is probably costing the same as many squads in this division. We have the likes of Routledge, Dyer, Montero who barely get a kick and are on Premier League wages. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 8:01]
|
That’s missed the point. Plenty of people have been advocating giving Potter more support in the transfer market. I don’t think anyone has advocated we do the same as Stoke. | | | |
| Stoke on 08:07 - Aug 23 with 1441 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 08:05 - Aug 23 by jack247 |
That’s missed the point. Plenty of people have been advocating giving Potter more support in the transfer market. I don’t think anyone has advocated we do the same as Stoke. |
Which point is being missed?
What do you mean “the same as Stoke”?
Stoke are spending more than their club can afford. People have been wantin us to do that all summer. As I told Risca, amounts are irrelevant. Man United can spend what Stoke have and absorb it perfectly well. The notion of spending what your club cannot afford is the point here. | |
| |
| Stoke on 08:07 - Aug 23 with 1442 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Stoke on 08:05 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Doesn’t matter how much so to compare to Stoke makes no difference, the principle is the same.
Spending more than your club can handle is the point. We are clearly cutting out cloth accordingly after the fallout from the relegation and to some that isn’t “backing” the manager. £6.5m on a player, plays his signing on fee and agents fees was called for even after it becoming clear there was little, if anything, in the pot. |
Strange why we pursued Woods when we knew what the figure was going to be.
We must have expected Clucas to retain alot more of his value and not lose close to £10m. | | | |
| Stoke on 08:12 - Aug 23 with 1425 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 08:07 - Aug 23 by 34dfgdf54 |
Strange why we pursued Woods when we knew what the figure was going to be.
We must have expected Clucas to retain alot more of his value and not lose close to £10m. |
Not really strange, if we did not keep irons in the fire we would be accused of not forward thinking.
It’s clear we did not get close to what we wanted to raise from sales. Thankfully we didn’t go foreign as we would have struggled to sell and raise what we got in order to close the deficit.
Unfortunately for us, Clucas’ £8m transfer broke down over personal terms leaving us light for the Woods deal. You may well have wanted us to overstretch like Stoke have in that instance, but I didn’t and am glad we didn’t. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 8:18]
| |
| |
| Stoke on 08:17 - Aug 23 with 1411 views | longlostjack |
| Stoke on 08:12 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Not really strange, if we did not keep irons in the fire we would be accused of not forward thinking.
It’s clear we did not get close to what we wanted to raise from sales. Thankfully we didn’t go foreign as we would have struggled to sell and raise what we got in order to close the deficit.
Unfortunately for us, Clucas’ £8m transfer broke down over personal terms leaving us light for the Woods deal. You may well have wanted us to overstretch like Stoke have in that instance, but I didn’t and am glad we didn’t. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 8:18]
|
Have off-field playing expenses been cut though? Any idea of the ratio of those expenses to turnover compared to other clubs? |  |
| |
| Stoke on 08:24 - Aug 23 with 1383 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Stoke on 08:12 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Not really strange, if we did not keep irons in the fire we would be accused of not forward thinking.
It’s clear we did not get close to what we wanted to raise from sales. Thankfully we didn’t go foreign as we would have struggled to sell and raise what we got in order to close the deficit.
Unfortunately for us, Clucas’ £8m transfer broke down over personal terms leaving us light for the Woods deal. You may well have wanted us to overstretch like Stoke have in that instance, but I didn’t and am glad we didn’t. [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 8:18]
|
<< It’s clear we did not get close to what we wanted to raise from sales. Thankfully we didn’t go foreign as we would have struggled to sell even what we got to close the deficit to what we managed >>
Foreign or English doesn't matter. Fabianksi, Fernandez, Mesa, Amat all "retained value", Ki would have if his contract didn't run down.
Just poor recruitment is why we didn't get the funds expected, most of those responsible have left the club though, only a few left. | | | |
| Stoke on 08:41 - Aug 23 with 1321 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 08:33 - Aug 23 by 34dfgdf54 |
Fabianski counts as home grown does he? How's that then? He went through academies in Poland, and played for Legia Warsaw until he was about 22 years old?
Amat - lost £1.71m. Still retained value.
Mesa halved in value, but still retained value, more value than that of Clucas for example, who is English.
Ki - Would have if we didn't let contract run down.
Agree completely about Bony, Andre and Jordan though, it's poor recruitment. |
Either way he was never going to be short of offers, plus he was a free transfer.
I didn’t say foreign players don’t retain value, you aren’t making up quotes again are you?
Why are you pointing out that Amat lost almost 70% of value? That’s just odd and clearly proving my point.
Value is what a club is prepared to pay. So Clucas was worth £8m and retained more value than all of the above - free transfer Fabianski apart - who was probably our best player for the last few years.
Which part are you struggling with? Or do you just want to argue after realising that you don’t have much of a point regarding wanting the club to overstretch?
(edit - he doesn’t count as homegrown after a quick google. My point remains). [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 8:59]
| |
| |
| Stoke on 09:04 - Aug 23 with 1251 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Stoke on 08:41 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Either way he was never going to be short of offers, plus he was a free transfer.
I didn’t say foreign players don’t retain value, you aren’t making up quotes again are you?
Why are you pointing out that Amat lost almost 70% of value? That’s just odd and clearly proving my point.
Value is what a club is prepared to pay. So Clucas was worth £8m and retained more value than all of the above - free transfer Fabianski apart - who was probably our best player for the last few years.
Which part are you struggling with? Or do you just want to argue after realising that you don’t have much of a point regarding wanting the club to overstretch?
(edit - he doesn’t count as homegrown after a quick google. My point remains). [Post edited 23 Aug 2018 8:59]
|
<< Either way he was never going to be short of offers, plus he was a free transfer. >>
Correct, he was a good player, so had offers, foreign or not.
<< Why are you pointing out that Amat lost almost 70% of value? That’s just odd and clearly proving my point. >>
We lost very little on him, and was a part of a successful squad.
<< Value is what a club is prepared to pay. So Clucas was worth £8m and retained more value than all of the above - free transfer Fabianski apart - who was probably our best player for the last few years. >>
I honest couldn't care less what Burnley offered, whatver happened, they didn't take the punt on him, and we lost £8.64m. Over half of his value, what's that percentage wise? I'm assuming you're decent at maths.
<<Which part are you struggling with? Or do you just want to argue after realising that you don’t have much of a point regarding wanting the club to overstretch? >>
When have I ever said I wanted the club to overstretch? If we can't afford a player, then fair enough. What I do want is those who were responsible for the ridiculous decisons made over the last few years. I couldn't care less if a player is from Stockport or Stockholm. Luckilly most of those involved have gone, there's a few left though. | | | |
| Stoke on 09:04 - Aug 23 with 1250 views | jack247 |
| Stoke on 08:07 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Which point is being missed?
What do you mean “the same as Stoke”?
Stoke are spending more than their club can afford. People have been wantin us to do that all summer. As I told Risca, amounts are irrelevant. Man United can spend what Stoke have and absorb it perfectly well. The notion of spending what your club cannot afford is the point here. |
But Stoke can afford it. Coates has pledged to bankroll a promotion push. As far as I understand he’s committing his own money to it, not lending.
By the same as Stoke, I mean spending the kind of amount you’d expect a Premier League team to and making a big loss in the window. Nobody has suggested that. | | | |
| Stoke on 09:10 - Aug 23 with 1232 views | E20Jack |
| Stoke on 09:04 - Aug 23 by jack247 |
But Stoke can afford it. Coates has pledged to bankroll a promotion push. As far as I understand he’s committing his own money to it, not lending.
By the same as Stoke, I mean spending the kind of amount you’d expect a Premier League team to and making a big loss in the window. Nobody has suggested that. |
They certainly cannot afford it. Their owner may be able to, but the football club most certainly cannot.
Sam Hammam made a similar pledge to Cardiff when his company Langston bankrolled their rise to the Championship. Turns out he nearly bankrupted them.
I would say I have seen dozens of people complain that we are not spending more money, money we clearly cannot afford to spend. So not sure how you haven’t seen anybody suggest we shouldn’t put our clubs financial position at risk for short term gains, because they quite clearly have. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
